Who is your favorite Bond director? (Poll)

123578

Comments

  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    edited March 2014 Posts: 15,138
    Why am I having to justify my thoughts on TND to you?
    If the movie is poor then at the end of the day, the director is to blame. He makes the final decision on what goes into, or is removed from the film.
    chrisisall wrote:

    And the end is a mess? According to whom?

    According to me. A fan of the Bond series.

  • HASEROTHASEROT has returned like the tedious inevitability of an unloved season---
    Posts: 4,399
    Spottiswoode is really generic in his shot choices - if you look at his resume of films, they aren't dotted with anything of artistic mastery (ie: Turner and Hooch, Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot, Air America, etc.)... he's never been a director who garnered much of style - he's kind of stuck in the mold of generic action directors of the late 80s/early 90s...... Not saying you have to be a cinematic master to work on Bond - and I did enjoy TND, it's pacing is really good - for that he deserves some credit.... But i just find his overall style (or lack thereof) very bland....

    just my 2 cents
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 2,402
    Benny wrote:
    Why am I having to justify my thoughts on TND to you?
    If the movie is poor then at the end of the day, the director is to blame. He makes the final decision on what goes into, or is removed from the film.
    chrisisall wrote:

    And the end is a mess? According to whom?

    According to me. A fan of the Bond series.

    Agree with all of this. Your complaining towards every person who puts Spottiswoode below #1 is bordering on spam (and far past the border of annoying) now, @chrisisall. I gave my arguments above, and there's no reason @Benny nor anyone else are obligated to do the same, considering their arguments are likely similar if not the same to mine.

    Not to mention you unnecessarily jump down others' throats. You criticized me for having Spottiswoode 9th when I don't even particularly dislike him, I just like the contributions of the eight above more.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    My List.

    Campbell
    Mendes
    Young
    Hunt
    Gilbert
    Spottiswood
    Apted
    Glen
    Forster










    Tamahori
  • Posts: 2,189
    Young did the most quintessentially "Bond" films so he gets it in my book
  • Posts: 4,409
    This I think is a very hard question to answer as the films are very producer driven. However, each director did bring something to the franchise which was distinct to them.

    Terence Young - I think Young was probably the best Bond director and also the most fortunate. Young injected the wit and style into the films. He saw that Bond as a character was inherently silly and he gave his films a serious but very playful feel. By all intents he was Bond, and the urbane, chic and sexy feel of the films today were all down to Young's personal tastes back then. However, he was the first director so his films are blissfully unselfconscious which I think has allowed them to age well.

    Guy Hamilton - I'm not the biggest Hamilton fan. His films were camp, silly comic-strips. I feel that whatever edge Young bought to the series, Hamilton successfully sanded off.

    Lewis Gilbert - He was the only Oscar nominated director before Mendes and his track record would suggest he would be more interested in a character-driven film but Gilbert's Bonds are the least personal of the series. They are great exercises in excess and their production values are sky high but they are not my favourites.

    Peter Hunt - Hunt was a novice with a lot to prove. The guy had buckets of style and OHMSS is one of the best looking Bond's there is and the film also has soul. It's also the most experimental of the Bonds at that point. I think he's fantastic.

    John Glen - The most workman of the bunch. Glen was dictated by the material if it was good the film went well. I just found him slightly bland and some of his staging is well off. Having said that Glen shot fantastic action sequences, his five movies have some of the most impressive ariel scenes on film.

    Martin Campbell - Campbell seems to be something of a second Terence Young. He understands Bond very well probably better than any other director. He has made the best Bond films in recent memory with lots of character, plot and action. He is probably my favourite Bond director.

    Roger Spottiswoode - Workman job and a generic film.

    Michael Apted - I really like TWINE, I think Apted bought his documentarian soul to the film (the Baku/oil subplot) but also created the most complex female character in a Bond film.

    Lee Tamahori - I think Tamahori just didn't understand Bond. He didn't get why the films worked so well for such a long time and instead made a noisy early 00's action film in the vein of xXx and the Fast and Furious films. He made the whole thing very video-gamey.

    Marc Forster - I like Forster's past work but he dropped the ball with QOS. I feel once again that he didn't get Bond and instead made a pseudo-Bourne movie. Forster is an art-house director and I feel he only took Bond on as an experiment. He never connected with the series, QOS was just an artistic excursion for him.

    Sam Mendes - The most accomplished and intelligent director of the bunch. Mendes is a soulful director invested in themes, character and motifs. People could probably write an English major on SF. He's also great an shooting action something none of the other dramatic directors did well in the series (Gilbert, Apted and Forster). If Bond 24 is anything like SF, he will undoubtedly jump ahead of Campbell for me.
  • Posts: 12,837
    1) John Glen. Yeah his films could've done with a bit more style and visual flair but he managed to make Bond films ranging from decent to brilliant every two years for a whole decade. No director before or since has matched the work rate of Glen. Martin Campbell had ten years between Goldeneye and Casino Royale, Sam Mendes decided he needed a rest after Skyfall, even Terrance Young sat on the bench for Goldfinger. Not John Glen, he was able to keep making Bond movies until he was forced to stop.

    Yeah he was a workman type director but he understood Bond and he made some brilliant films. I love OP and the Dalton films are my favourite in the series. Plus he was by far the best director when it comes to action. We got the best stunts of the series under Glen and we won't get anything on the same level as the likes of the cargo net fight today, not when they can just use CGI.

    2) Martin Campbell. He's a better director than Glen but Glen made more films and the Dalton films are my favourites so he just edges it for me. Campbell though is brilliant. He managed to reinvent Bond twice, for post cold war and for post 9/11, and both times he made one of the best Bond films ever. I think when it comes to fight scenes he's without a doubt the best director and GE and CR are both fantastic looking films. He's great with action but he's also great with the drama and character stuff. GE made Bond a more vulnerable character and CR has the most complex Bond of the series. I'd love it if he did one more when the next actor takes over but sadly he's probably too old.

    3) Peter Hunt. I had a hard time choosing between him and Terrance Young but I prefer OHMSS to any of Young's films so Hunt manages to take the no 3 spot. Peter Hunt is the only director so far to really capture Fleming's Bond imo. Lazenby gave a good performance but I think Hunt deserves most of the credit for turning someone who isn't even an actor into Fleming's Bond and placing him what's just a fantastic film all round. Shame he didn't do anymore.

    4) Terrance Young. If it wasn't for Sean Connery and Terrance Young we wouldn't even be doing this. Young and Connery invented an icon with DN. Fleming might have invented Bond but Young invented the cinematic Bond. The only reason he isn't ranked higher is because I'm not a huge fan of DN or TB (I don't mind them, I just think there are better films). FRWL is class though.

    5) Sam Mendes. He's only done one film so far but it was a great one. He made a deep, brilliant, amazing looking film that was perfect for the 50th anniversary. SF is my favourite Craig film and I can't wait for Bond 24. I do think he could be better with action though, particularly the fight scenes, which I thought didn't live up to CR and QOS. It also annoyed me how he put the gunbarrel at the end again. Also I didn't like how he bought Thomas Newman with him, I hope he ditches him for the next one.

    6) Lewis Gilbert. Nobody does OTT Bond better than him. What I love about his films were that they were all on an epic scale. His films were also stylish, they looked brilliant and had some fantastic action with some amazing special effects (they've aged really well). YOLT is great fun and TSWLM is one of my top 5 Bond films. Not a huge fan of MR but most of my problems with that are down the script, not him. He made some great films and I feel like I'm ranking him a bit low but that's just because I like the others better, not because I don't like him.

    7) Michael Apted. Like Glen, he could've done with a bit more style and visual flair (all the locations in TWINE look a bit dull and grey) but he managed to make a great, complex Bond film. TWINE is one of my favourites and I wish he'd returned for DAD.

    8) Guy Hamilton. Goldfinger is a classic but I think he got lucky. LALD is a mixed bag for me and TMWTGG and DAF are two of my least favourites. He deserves respect for GF which really defined the Bond formula (gadgets, Aston Martin, henchman, big Ken Adam set, girls with sex puns for names, great one liners, etc), but I don't think he was a great director. Shouldn't have returned after GF.

    9) Roger Spottiswoode. I really enjoy TND. It's generic but it's lots of fun, Brosnan is on top form and I think Spottiswoode did a good job. Again, it's not that I don't like him, it's just that I think the people above all, at some point or another, made better films. He did a good job though, he made a fast paced, fun Bond movie with some great action. The Lewis Gilbert of the 90s.

    10) Lee Tamahori. This is controversial but let me explain. While Marc Foster made a worse film, I think Lee Tamahori is a better director. In fact I think he's a good director. He's great with action, he can do drama well and he's brilliant with pacing. The problem is he's too much of a fanboy, filling the film with cheesey references, and he had some crap ideas. He also can't do big action films because he goes overboard with the CGI. He's great with something like the Devils Double (fantastic film btw) because it's a thriller but it's on a small scale. But he can't do big action films because when he has a big set piece, he seems to rely too much on naff CGI. So when he's given a film with explosions, a falling ice palace and a laser satellite...yeah. Good director but he shouldn't have been allowed near a Bond film, especially not one as OTT as DAD.

    11) Marc Forster. QOS, while not crap like DAD or DAF, is a pretentious mess of a film. It's a good looking film with great cinematography, and there are a few good moments but they get lost in a sea of badly edited, shoved in action scenes. I've ranted about QOS before so I can't really be arsed now but I think Forster did a terrible job.
    Brosnan is the perfect cinematic Bond in TND, up there with the best of Sean and Roger.

    =)) I need something to eat, so ignore me. Next!

    I don't see what's funny about it. What's wrong with Brosnan in TND? Yeah it's not a groundbreaking original performance but that doesn't make it the worst Bond performance of the series.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited March 2014 Posts: 17,801
    Your complaining towards every person who puts Spottiswoode below #1 is bordering on spam (and far past the border of annoying) now, @chrisisall.
    you unnecessarily jump down others' throats. You criticized me for having Spottiswoode 9th
    LOL, let's apply the brakes here just a bit, eh? :)) What if I went around here saying that Young was a mediocre director? You think no one would ask me why I thought that? And what if I answered because his films were poor. Should no one ask for my reasoning? And what if I then said that TB was full of slow underwater stuff and it was just a mess. Once again, you expect no one to press me for a more specific answer?

    I asked folks why they dislike Spottiswoode, and I keep getting the same non-specific answer: too much generic gun fire & he made Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot. Pardon me if that doesn't fully satisfy my need to know. :P

    Oh wait-! I thought this was MI6! Have I accidentally logged on to PiercewasNOTBond.com?? @-)

    ;)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Brosnan is the perfect cinematic Bond in TND, up there with the best of Sean and Roger.

    =)) I need something to eat, so ignore me. Next!

    I don't see what's funny about it. What's wrong with Brosnan in TND? Yeah it's not a groundbreaking original performance but that doesn't make it the worst Bond performance of the series.

    You are right, that would be Brosnan in GE. For me he is just too lightweight and feminine. Like he walked out of a ladies magazine or daytime soap series.We will always disagree about him, that is OK. I did enjoy your review of all the directors, though. Even if I do not agree with everything, it was articulate and well thought out. Same to you, @Pierce2Daniel. Well done, both.

  • edited March 2014 Posts: 5,767
    JBFan626 wrote:
    Campbell revived the Bond 'feel' with Goldeneye
    "Revived the Bond feel" is quite a stretch. Campbell made a very good film, but GE had pretty little in common with any traditional Bond feel.



    Anyhow, favorite directors:

    1. Young. He had quite a hand in inventing cinematic Bond, and his films still belong to the best.
    2. Glen. He didn´t exactly invent anything, yet his films have a solidity that bears more than any originality.
    3. Campbell and Forster. With CR and QOS, they both did something miraculously incomplete yet at the same time very beautiful. I´d say they both didn´t make the mistake of trying to make the perfect Bond film, although I guess in both cases it wasn´t intentional.
    4. Hunt. He made one of the best Bond films, moreover, with one of the least actors in the lead role.
    5. Hamilton and Gilbert.
  • Posts: 2,402
    chrisisall wrote:
    Your complaining towards every person who puts Spottiswoode below #1 is bordering on spam (and far past the border of annoying) now, @chrisisall.
    you unnecessarily jump down others' throats. You criticized me for having Spottiswoode 9th
    LOL, let's apply the brakes here just a bit, eh? :)) What if I went around here saying that Young was a mediocre director? You think no one would ask me why I thought that? And what if I answered because his films were poor. Should no one ask for my reasoning? And what if I then said that TB was full of slow underwater stuff and it was just a mess. Once again, you expect no one to press me for a more specific answer?

    I asked folks why they dislike Spottiswoode, and I keep getting the same non-specific answer: too much generic gun fire & he made Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot. Pardon me if that doesn't fully satisfy my need to know. :P

    Oh wait-! I thought this was MI6! Have I accidentally logged on to PiercewasNOTBond.com?? @-)

    ;)

    I gave you my sincere, full answer and yet you proceeded to question two other users' choices afterwards. Of course I would question why someone would call Young a poor director, but I wouldn't go making a post for every single person who ranked him in a low spot. That's just repetitive and takes up space.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited March 2014 Posts: 17,801
    I gave you my sincere, full answer
    It has been pointed out to me by someone I trust that I have been a jerk here.
    Post deleted by me.
    Apologies to @StirredNotShaken & others.
  • Posts: 12,837
    Brosnan is the perfect cinematic Bond in TND, up there with the best of Sean and Roger.

    =)) I need something to eat, so ignore me. Next!

    I don't see what's funny about it. What's wrong with Brosnan in TND? Yeah it's not a groundbreaking original performance but that doesn't make it the worst Bond performance of the series.

    You are right, that would be Brosnan in GE. For me he is just too lightweight and feminine. Like he walked out of a ladies magazine or daytime soap series.We will always disagree about him, that is OK. I did enjoy your review of all the directors, though. Even if I do not agree with everything, it was articulate and well thought out. Same to you, @Pierce2Daniel. Well done, both.

    Yeah I don't think we'll ever agree on Brosnan. I do think GE is his worst performance (he seems a bit uncomfortable and self conscious, he got better as he went on because he relaxed more and more) but I'd say the worst Bond performance is Connery in DAF.
  • I’m certainly with Terence Young on this one as Dr. No, From Russia with Love and Thunderball would be all the evidence I need. Frankly, Dr. No might in itself be sufficient evidence. It remains one of my favourites and Young did not only get the series going on an all-important right and in its time groundbreaking foot but was also by all accounts crucial in the process of turning Sean Connery into the silver screen James Bond. Young elegantly opened the door for history to follow, and that alone could be enough to call him my favourite Bond director.

    Outside their work in the Bond series, I would have to say Marc Forster though regrettably his latter day output has been a far cry from his pre Quantum of Solace achievements. Sam Mendes might be up for consideration too, and of course Roger Spottiswoode get a honourable mention for Terror Train as well.
  • Posts: 1,817
    0013 wrote:
    My ranking:
    1. Terence Young: set the bluprint for the movies staying close to Fleming
    2. Peter Young and Martin Campbell: each film they made they innovated while keeping faithful to the tradition, a balance not always accomplished by others.
    3. Lewis Gilbert: a great escapism and imagination.
    4. Guy Hamilton: funny movies.
    5. John Glen: I like his movies but I don't see a characteristic stlye.
    6. Marc Foster: he tried something visually new but he sacrified important elements (eg gunbarrel at the begining) and the matching with the older movies was simply crude (the oiled agent Fields).
    7. Roger Spootiswood and Michael Apted: nothing new, just good action flicks.
    8. Lee Tamahori: he made some distasteful decisions.

    I was checking my old post. Updated with Mendes will be now this (the comments remain as I wrote them before):

    1. Terence Young
    2. Martin Campbell
    3. Peter Young
    4. Sam Mendes
    5. John Glen
    6. Lewis Gilbert
    7. Guy Hamilton
    8. Roger Spootiswood and Michael Apted
    9. Marc Foster
    10. Lee Tamahori
  • Posts: 1,314
    John glen just filmed stuff he wasn't a director of the class of Mendes. In fact mendes got performances out of the cast of Skyfall better than anyone before him.

    Compare silva and Camille's opening scene with Lupe gushing"I love James so much" or cheery Felix at the end of LTK
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    Matt007 wrote:
    Compare silva and Camille's opening scene with Lupe gushing"I love James so much" or cheery Felix at the end of LTK
    Lupe was a dopey girl, Felix was doped up on painkillers, both were pitch-perfect performances.

    :P
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 5,767
    Matt007 wrote:
    John glen just filmed stuff he wasn't a director of the class of Mendes. In fact mendes got performances out of the cast of Skyfall better than anyone before him.

    Compare silva and Camille's opening scene with Lupe gushing"I love James so much" or cheery Felix at the end of LTK
    In the overall film, the latter performances fit the film much better.
    And if Mendes has so much class, then why did he have Naomi Harris deliver such a lousy performance?

  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    boldfinger wrote:
    Matt007 wrote:
    John glen just filmed stuff he wasn't a director of the class of Mendes. In fact mendes got performances out of the cast of Skyfall better than anyone before him.

    Compare silva and Camille's opening scene with Lupe gushing"I love James so much" or cheery Felix at the end of LTK
    In the overall film, the latter performances fit the film much better.
    And if Mendes has so much class, then why did he have Naomi Harris deliver such a lousy performance?

    He's a director, not a magician. If you think an actor/actress delivered a bad performance, the director can't always be blamed, especially if the performer simply lacks the talent for the job (not referring to Harris here). By that logic, Francis Ford Coppola could make Denise Richards an Oscar winning actress in minutes. Har har.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    By that logic, Francis Ford Coppola could make Denise Richards an Oscar winning actress in minutes. Har har.
    He'd effin' wring a good performance from her near-lifeless corpse.
    ;)
  • Posts: 12,837
    boldfinger wrote:
    Matt007 wrote:
    John glen just filmed stuff he wasn't a director of the class of Mendes. In fact mendes got performances out of the cast of Skyfall better than anyone before him.

    Compare silva and Camille's opening scene with Lupe gushing"I love James so much" or cheery Felix at the end of LTK
    In the overall film, the latter performances fit the film much better.
    And if Mendes has so much class, then why did he have Naomi Harris deliver such a lousy performance?

    He's a director, not a magician. If you think an actor/actress delivered a bad performance, the director can't always be blamed, especially if the performer simply lacks the talent for the job (not referring to Harris here). By that logic, Francis Ford Coppola could make Denise Richards an Oscar winning actress in minutes. Har har.

    Well then if he can't be held responsible for a poor performance then why does Mendes deserve credit for the good ones?
  • SuperheroSithSuperheroSith SE London
    Posts: 578
    My favourite bond is SF so I'd have to go Sam Mendes. But for the one who directed more than one film, Campbell definitely.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    As irrelevant as this poll is, it is not quite fair, is it? To Mendes I mean.
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 4,622
    #1directer is Guy Hamilton who put Bond into the stratosphere with the wildly popular GF and then returned to launch a second golden era of '70s Bond, with three of the most colourful, entertaining entries in the series, DAF, LALD and TMWTGG.
    A master at blending escapist camp with real danger and suspense.
    Also directed another Bond inspired vehicle, Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985)
    Hamilton is my favourite all-time film director.

    #2 Terrence Young
    #3 Peter Hunt
    #4 Lewis Gilbert
    #5 John Glen
    #6 Martin Campbell
    #7 Michael Apted
    #8 Lee Tamahori
    #9 Roger Spottiswoode
    #10 Marc Forster
    #11 Sam Mendes
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    boldfinger wrote:
    Matt007 wrote:
    John glen just filmed stuff he wasn't a director of the class of Mendes. In fact mendes got performances out of the cast of Skyfall better than anyone before him.

    Compare silva and Camille's opening scene with Lupe gushing"I love James so much" or cheery Felix at the end of LTK
    In the overall film, the latter performances fit the film much better.
    And if Mendes has so much class, then why did he have Naomi Harris deliver such a lousy performance?

    He's a director, not a magician. If you think an actor/actress delivered a bad performance, the director can't always be blamed, especially if the performer simply lacks the talent for the job (not referring to Harris here). By that logic, Francis Ford Coppola could make Denise Richards an Oscar winning actress in minutes. Har har.

    Well then if he can't be held responsible for a poor performance then why does Mendes deserve credit for the good ones?

    Well, the performances in Skyfall that often get praise are chiefly from Dan, Judi and Javier, who each have great acting talents already, and their performances can only be improved by the proper direction, if any, that Mendes gives them. I guess that is why some praise those great performances and hand Mendes some of that credit, since the actors are already professionals in their own right. That's what I would commend Mendes on, anyway. I look at it this way: a great director can get great performances out of actors that already have the talent for the job, but no director can do that for someone who doesn't have those skills. Therefore, we may often give credit to the director for the good performances because we rationalize that they took already great actors and made them even better, whereas bad actors are just bad and can't be helped when their performance inevitably fails to meet the proper criteria. Hence my hypothetical joke about Coppola not being able to get a great performance out of Richards.

    I hope I explained myself clearly here...
  • Posts: 6,396

    #1 Lewis Gilbert
    #2 Terrence Young
    #3 Martin Campbell
    #4 John Glen
    #5 Peter Hunt
    #6 Sam Mendes
    #7 Guy Hamilton
    #8 Marc Forster
    #9 Michael Apted




    #10 Roger Spottiswoode








    #11 Lee Tamahori
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,801
    #10 Roger Spottiswoode

    So low?
    brucelee.gif
    LEE KICK ASS!
  • edited March 2014 Posts: 5,767
    boldfinger wrote:
    Matt007 wrote:
    John glen just filmed stuff he wasn't a director of the class of Mendes. In fact mendes got performances out of the cast of Skyfall better than anyone before him.

    Compare silva and Camille's opening scene with Lupe gushing"I love James so much" or cheery Felix at the end of LTK
    In the overall film, the latter performances fit the film much better.
    And if Mendes has so much class, then why did he have Naomi Harris deliver such a lousy performance?

    He's a director, not a magician. If you think an actor/actress delivered a bad performance, the director can't always be blamed, especially if the performer simply lacks the talent for the job (not referring to Harris here). By that logic, Francis Ford Coppola could make Denise Richards an Oscar winning actress in minutes. Har har.

    Well then if he can't be held responsible for a poor performance then why does Mendes deserve credit for the good ones?

    Well, the performances in Skyfall that often get praise are chiefly from Dan, Judi and Javier, who each have great acting talents already, and their performances can only be improved by the proper direction, if any, that Mendes gives them. I guess that is why some praise those great performances and hand Mendes some of that credit, since the actors are already professionals in their own right. That's what I would commend Mendes on, anyway. I look at it this way: a great director can get great performances out of actors that already have the talent for the job, but no director can do that for someone who doesn't have those skills. Therefore, we may often give credit to the director for the good performances because we rationalize that they took already great actors and made them even better, whereas bad actors are just bad and can't be helped when their performance inevitably fails to meet the proper criteria. Hence my hypothetical joke about Coppola not being able to get a great performance out of Richards.

    I hope I explained myself clearly here...
    What is clear is that you can´t simply say Harris doesn´t have the skills. Her performances in 28 Days, Miami Vice, and Pirates of the Caribbean were way above her performance in SF.
    As for Miami Vice, you could argue that, no matter how good or not Mann´s films might be, since Heat he gets good performances out of every single actor (e.g. Colin Farrell). But that would again mean that Mendes is not such a good director.

    According to Mendes himself (I think in his 25 rules) he gave the ok for every actor and is therefore one of the people to take the blame.

    I remember very clearly some of the older films, e.g. TSHLM, having some terribly bad acting in it. But in those films, always the minor actors were arranged around the central characters in a complimentary way. Much like a George Stubbs painting, with the animals in the foreground incredibly accurate, and the landscape in the background on purpose a bit sloppy. What Mendes did, he gave some characters (especially Tanner and MP) foreground space but still painted them sloppily.

    Another point is that SF is all about talking and not much about doing. When Q came in in FRWL and exchanged greetings with M and Bond, you knew after two words in depth how each one was thinking about each other. When Bond meets with Q in SF, they exchange a lot of banter that, even though it leads somewhere, is in the end by far shallower than it pretends to be. It seems they tried to emulate the kind of pointy dialogue at Bond and Vesper´s first meeting, but didn´t get anywhere near it.
    But that might not be only the director´s fault.
  • Posts: 4,622
    boldfinger wrote:
    When Q came in in FRWL and exchanged greetings with M and Bond, you knew after two words in depth how each one was thinking about each other. When Bond meets with Q in SF, they exchange a lot of banter that, even though it leads somewhere, is in the end by far shallower than it pretends to be.
    yes the FRWL scene was done much better.

  • Posts: 4,762
    If I had to rank them, my list would appear something like this:

    1. Martin Campbell
    2. John Glen
    3. Terrence Young
    4. Sam Mendes
    5. Guy Hamilton
    6. Roger Spottiswoode
    7. Lewis Gilbert
    8. Michael Apted
    9. Lee Tamahori
Sign In or Register to comment.